Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 607–633 | Cite as

Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: are students epistemically active?

Article

Abstract

Students are making an increased use of the Web as a source for solving information problems for academic assignments. To extend current research about search behavior during navigation on the Web, this study examined whether students are able to spontaneously reflect, from an epistemic perspective, on the information accessed, and whether their epistemic metacognition is related to individual characteristics, such as prior knowledge of the topic and the need for cognition. In addition, we investigated whether Internet-based learning is influenced by the activation of spontaneous epistemic metacognition in the search context. Forty-six psychology and engineering university students were asked to research information about a controversial subject in order to write an essay. They were also asked to think aloud during their research. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed. As revealed by their spontaneous reflections, all participants were epistemically active, although to different extents and levels. As expected, there was evidence that students activated beliefs about the four epistemic dimensions identified in the literature, especially about the credibility of an electronic source and the criteria for justification of knowledge. Prior knowledge was not related to activation of epistemic beliefs in the search context, while the need for cognition significantly associated with aspects of source and its content evaluation. Two patterns of epistemic metacognition were identified and they significantly influenced Internet-based learning. Students who spontaneously generated more sophisticated reflections about the sources as well as the information provided, outperformed students who were active only at the first epistemic level. Educational implications are drawn.

Keywords

Epistemic metacognition Epistemic beliefs Epistemological beliefs New literacy Information searching Critical thinking 

References

  1. Agosto, D. E. (2002). A model of young people’s decision-making in using the Web. Library & Information Science Research, 24, 311–341. doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(02)00131-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2003). Learning from traditional and alternative texts: New conceptualizations for the information age. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 199–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Adi Fine, O. K. (2007). The effect of need for cognition on Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 880–891. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3, 39–58. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilal, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 646–665. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<646::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilal, D. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: II. Cognitive and physical behaviors on research task. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 118–136. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1038>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information problem solving by experts and novices: Analysis of a complex cognitive skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 487–508. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bråten, I., Gil, L., Storey, J., Strømsø, H. I., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Britt, M. A.(2008, March). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring the dimensionality of topic-specific epistemic beliefs in Norway, Spain, and the United States. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027–1042. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (in press). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes.Google Scholar
  11. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationship between Internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 141–171. doi:10.2190/E763-X0LN-6NMF-CB86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the Web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191–213. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 399–416). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 687–726. doi:10.3102/00028312042004697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, D. B., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). Evaluating media-enhancement and source authority on the Internet: the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 859–871. doi:10.1080/095006900412310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458–464. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/rt/2-03
  20. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, J., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cornoldi, C., & Soresi, S. (1980). Psychological diagnosis of learning difficulties [La diagnosi psicologica delle difficoltà di apprendimento]. Pordenone, Italy: ERIP. (in Italian).Google Scholar
  22. Cotton, D., & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think-aloud method for evaluating e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 45–54. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00521.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dai, D. Y., & Wang, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 332–347. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. diSessa, A. A., Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2003). J’s epistemological stance and strategies. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 237–290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Dominowski, R. L. (1998). Verbalization and problem solving. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 25–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (2000). The BIG6 collection: The best of the Big6 newsletter. Worthington, OH: Linworth.Google Scholar
  27. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kurshner, E. J., et al. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behaviour of high school student. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 50, 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30, 22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hess, B. (1999). Graduate student cognition during information retrieval using the World Wide Web: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 33, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirsh, S. (1999). Children’s relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1265–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Google Scholar
  35. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. International Reading Association. (2001). Integrating literacy and technology in the curriculum: A position statement. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ps1048_technology.pdf
  37. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kafai, Y., & Bates, M. J. (1997). Internet Web-searching instruction in the elementary classroom: Building a foundation for information literacy. School Library Media Quarterly (Winter), 103–111.Google Scholar
  39. Karabenick, S., & Moosa, S. (2005). Culture and personal epistemology: U.S. and Middle Eastern students’ beliefs about scientific knowledge and knowing. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 375–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issue. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. King, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–25. 46.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). Domain knowledge, interest, and hypertext navigation: A study of individual differences. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 51–69.Google Scholar
  52. Leu, D. J. (2002). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Lin, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). A “navigation flow map” method of representing students’ searching behaviors and strategies on the Web. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 689–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. MaKinster, J. G., Beghetto, R. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Why can’t I find Newton’s third law? Case studies of students’ use of the Web as a Science Resource. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marchionini, G., Dwiggins, S., Katz, A., & Lin, X. (1993). Information seeking in full-text and user oriented search systems: The role of domain and search expertise. Library and Information Science Research, 15, 35–69.Google Scholar
  58. Mason, L. (2000). Role of anomalous data and epistemological beliefs in middle students’ theory change on two controversial topics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the Web. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377–404). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–197). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  62. Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topic by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milner, B. (1971). Interhemispheric differences in the localization of psychological processes in man. British Medical Bullettin, 27, 272–277.Google Scholar
  64. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.Google Scholar
  65. Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in the context of mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nuckles, M., & Bromme, R. (2002). Internet experts’ planning of explanations for laypersons: A Web experimental approach in the Internet domain. Experimental Psychology, 49, 292–304.Google Scholar
  67. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Park, Y., & Black, J. B. (2007). Identifying the impact of domain knowledge and cognitive style on Web-based information search behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helpleness in secondary school student’ leaning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rogers, D., & Swan, K. (2004). Self-regulated learning and Internet searching. Teachers College Record, 106, 1804–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schacter, J., Chung, G., & Dorr, A. (1998). Children’s Internet searching on complex problems: Performance and process analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 840–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case of intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 317–345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  76. Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). Task complexity, epistemological beliefs and metacognitive calibration: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing Research, 35, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies in individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  78. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Dimensions of topic-specific epistemological beliefs as predictors of multiple-text understanding. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tsai, C. C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-Assisted Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 970–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tsai, C. C. (2004a). Beyond cognitive and metacognitive tools: The use of Internet as an “epistemological” tool for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tsai, C. C. (2004b). Information commitments in Web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105–112.Google Scholar
  82. Tsai, C. C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 273–285). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  83. Tsai, C. C., & Chuang, S. C. (2005). The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tu, Y. W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategies and outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51, 1142–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wallace, R. M., Kupperman, J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Weinstock, M., Neuman, Y., & Tabak, I. (2004). Missing the point or missing the norms? Epistemological norms as predictors of students’ ability to identify fallacious arguments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behaviour of undergraduates. Library and Information Science Research, 25, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2005). Strategies of Internet reading with different reading purposes. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Socialization Psychology (DPSS)University of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations